I have recently remarked that there are signs suggesting some of the SNP loyalists were beginning to wake up to the fact that they have been duped by John Swinney and his accomplices.
It fucking annoys me I have to do this because of the extreme partisanship of the "Dumb party loyalists" on the one hand, and the "Dumb party destroyers" on the other.
and here's a couple of quotes, with my comment after it:
"Having spent five years relentlessly pursuing the Scottish Government over the so-called "Salmond Files", Scotland's information commissioner is about to have Operation Branchform in his sights."
Excellent. Doing his job.
"Earlier this year, the Scottish Government was found in contempt of court by the Court of Session over its delay in releasing the heavily-redacted material first requested back in 2021."
Do you see that? The Court of Session doing its job - one of the routes for the SIC (Scotland's information commissioner).
"While Freedom of Information decisions by the Crown Office cannot be appealed to the commissioner under current law, Mr Hamilton confirmed he is prepared to use his statutory powers to compel bodies like Police Scotland to release materials where it serves the public interest."
Well bloody do it then, don't go whining to the press - specially just one newspaper. But note that: "his statutory powers to compel bodies like Police Scotland" - another of the routes for the SIC.
"With the Commissioner stating on Sunday that Branchform decisions "merit further scrutiny" he seems to indicating that he would take an open-minded approach."
If it is his job to enforce the "further scrutiny", then DO YOUR BLOODY JOB. If not. leave it to whoever's job it is, though perhaps pass on the request with a simple comment "I agree".
Running to one single newspaper is pathetic. Unless it is absolutely the last resort, to be followed by "I resign as I am not allowed to do my job by: xxx, yyy, long list".
In your strange mind, the phrase "merit further scrutiny" takes on a meaning beyond anything to be found in a dictionary. Your final paragraph suggests "strange" may not be a big enough word.
"With the Commissioner stating on Sunday that Branchform decisions "merit further scrutiny" he seems to indicating that he would take an open-minded approach."
Not very good at this quote attribution thing, are you? Next you'll be telling everybody Alan Cochrane of the Telegraph is the best friend Independence ever had as he hates the SNP!
What was from what Herald article? The phrase "merits further scrutiny" is a direct quote from David Hamilton's Times interview. Kathleen Nutt is correct. She clearly understands the phrase the same way everybody bar you understands it. It indicates that he is keeping an open mind. You want him sacked for keeping an open mind. Yer a nutter!
Anyways I give up. It's like trying to have a sensible conversation with a senile illiterate imbecile. Just in case you have one single remaining functioning neuron, here it is in summary:
*** Scottish Information Commissioner - DO YOUR BLOODY JOB ***
Always the lies. Nowhere did I say anything even remotely like that. Nowhere, that is, except inside that demented wee head of yours. David Hamilton seems to be doing his job quite well. It is only proper that he should approach matters with an open mind. It's not clear why you object so vehemently to him taking this approach.
But you do it all the time yourself to others - you twist their words to try to say what your furtive neuron wants it to say. You just did it again in your reply to me.
I was looking back through previous articles and their associated comments and was reminded that 2 months ago you published the article "Trust no more!" [1]
Wherein you draw attention to the credible testimony of two women [2] who were witness to part of the slow motion trainwreck that was the SNP accounting shambles.
That incident similarly highlights the almost unbelievable level of excuse creation and outright denial among people who otherwise seemingly have brains functional enough to type comments into Nationalist related comments sections and social media.
It surely must be the case that non true believers must have been negatively influenced by these recent revelations.
I have yet to see evidence that those vociferous protesters have reached their own personal reckoning.
Perhaps some of them never will?
But they do look increasingly deranged to the rest of us.
So that is something.
At some point the number of ordinary people who are prepared to say
'stop with this nonsense, look at what has happened'
is going to significantly outnumber then overpower the reality deniers.
If we have not already reached that point then we must be very close to it already.
We will only be sure with hindsight.
By that point in time they should be increasingly irrelevant.
I had to go and read the article you refer to (https://bitl.to/605V). Not for the first time, I found myself nodding in agreement with the article as if it had been written by someone else. And I found myself getting angry again at the brazen dishonesty at the top of the SNP.
What do we do about it? That question has been plaguing me. Not because I don't know the answer, but because I do. I know that we need New Scotland Party. It can be revived. But I don't know that I'm the person for that job.
I have got as far as seriously considering a fundraising exercise and even checking out some of the options. But I am very reluctant to ask people for money. I don't like being responsible for it.
I think I'll write an article on this tomorrow. Very often, I argue myself into or out of things in the process of writing about them.
I am absolutely convinced that we must have a genuine party of independence. I should probably include my reasons in the article. We need a genuine national party that hasn't been captured by the British establishment. I don't particularly want to be in charge of setting up this party. But at the same time, I don't trust anyone else to do it.
Apologies for rambling a bit. Just pouring out some of the content of my head to see what it looks like in the wild.
Having given this some thought, I sympathise on the dilema.
If _somebody_else_ would just step up and DO THE RIGHT THING we would all be more than likely to rally to their flag.
Unfortunately, and I am going to propose a very opinionated view here, those who think that they have stepped up are most definitely NOT doing the right thing.
This moment we are in now is a period, after the betrayal of the post election inaction (that we expected) and the disappearance of the false hope of the Alba party, that should be the optimum time for educating increasing numbers of an increasingly receptive audience .
However, and I am going to be controversial and judgemental again here,
our supposed 'thought leaders' are so far behind where they need to be in their thinking that they may well be our largest handicap in that necessary endeavour.
(please Note: I explicitly exclude Salvo / Liberation from this damning judgement)
I would say that the time that it will become desperately important to have a true independence party is not necessarily upon us just yet.
Of course the timetable could suddenly be pulled up very dramatically short if the UK government precedes in the way that I fear that it is going to. :-(
So called 'Independence' leaders need to understand and accept first and foremost that England-as-Britain is NEVER going to 'let' Scotland go.
The real politik is just that simple.
They need to face it, accept it, then address the 'What Next' question.
What are they going to do once they acknowledge that we have to TAKE back our independence FROM England-as-Britain.
It will not be 'given' and if it were, it would be a total sham.
A fake. Worse than where we are now - with at least a hope of reinstating our sovereignty and resiling from the Treaty of Union.
Do you know Gayle Millar?
She is the only other Independence public intellectual / writer that I can think of outside of the Liberation movement that has publicised a realistic understanding of our situation.
I have now read Gayle's comments and find her thinking interesting even if a bit legalistic for my taste. I did post a reply inviting her to get in touch. I don't know if my comment will get past the censors.
And, yes, I know what you mean about being a bit legalistic - a subject I'm not at all knowledgeable about; though Gayle certainly appears to be and, given what we're trying to do, ie find as many " angles " from which to pursue - and achieve - our goal as possible - such legal aspects are, or could become, of vital relevance. Again, for me, it's a case of using everything we have at our disposal to advance our cause. I only wish all the disparate elements could be brought together into one unified ( by single-minded intent ) point/body
Aye, it can be a bit frustrating, as the delay in comments appearing has the effect of breaking the * flow * of exchanges/conversation: to the point where it can become pointless to reply to a comment that has appeared days later when the initial impetus has been depleted and, at times, a new post has appeared
Gayle is excellent. I assume you've read her recent posts BTL on Barrhead Boy laying out her position and suggesting strategies for implementation of her ideas.
Peter, if you read this, I would recommend having a look at what Gayle has written as part of recent exchanges with Roddy. I hope your, ahem....." differences of opinion " won't prevent you doing so. She, like a previous suggestion, ie Craig Murray, is someone with whom I could imagine you having fruitful dialogue.
The recent exchange between Gayle and Roddy began - I think -BTL on the previous Sunday's Prism and continued on the most recent one, ie Sunday past: just so you'll have more context of what was said by each
"The SNP did solicit donations to a fund which they stated would be ring-fenced to finance the pro-independence campaign in a new referendum."
NOT at the time of the donation being made as far as I can see, unless there is some evidence which can actually be proved in court that the donation page said it would be ring-fenced.
AFTER the donation was made, utterings and mutterings don't prove a single solitary thing. They were not the incentive to donate unless the donor had their own Tardis.
Just to clarify that, talking to one single newspaper should surely be against his code of conduct, his ethics. His first recourse is direct to the government officials concerned. His second is to the Court of Session presumably, and he has / is already doing that on issues. If he feels a need to talk to the media, he should call a press conference and talk to ALL of them. No "exclusives". He is a public official, and should act like one. I think the SPCB should consider reprimanding him and reminding him of his duties to the public - us.
What rule(s) has David Hamilton breached? What provision of his code of conduct has he failed to comply with?
I have seen this kind of comment from a number of dumb SNP loyalists. The purpose it would seem is to cast aspersions which are never supported by reference to anything substantial. It's just throwing shit to see what will stick.
He has routes he should take as I pointed out. IF that all failed he should have called a press conference, rather than talking to one single one-sided newspaper.
All public officials should be unbiased in their dealings with the media.
If you can't see that you are being one-sided yourself.
I am totally in favour of governments whatever their flavour, being held to account.
Why? Why should he have talked to a number of media outlets greater than one? It was an interview. Presumably, The Times contacted him and asked if he'd submit to being interviewed. Other newspapers could have done likewise. Apparently, they didn't.
Where is the bias? All he did was acknowledge that there were "conflicting versions of events". Which is simply a statement of fact. He went on to say that this "merits further scrutiny". A rather mild statement and not at all controversial.
If "further scrutiny" is his job, then he should do his job. If it isn't his job, he should have some respect for those whose job it is - perhaps the courts. His public office is certainly not to be a populist, running off to the press for whatever reason.
He is the Scottish Information Commissioner - and should behave as though he is fit for that office, rather than demean it.
Some may have thought devolution was a "stepping stone towards independence". I did not see it that way at all. I'm sure I'd be able to find some old blog article in which I pointed out that devolution was not incremental and could not metamorphose into independence. Devolution was offered as an alternative to independence. For independence to be restored, devolution would have to end.
Devolution was initially and for some years beneficial to Scotland's cause. Alex Salmond found ways to use devolution to create or highlight differences between Scotland and England. It was in the course of the two Salmond-led administrations that the locus of Scotland's politics shifted from Westminster to Holyrood. This was an essential precursor to any effort aimed at restoring independence.
This ended when Salmond stepped down. Instead of using devolution as a means to build a base for Scotland's cause, Sturgeon and her successors went back to treating devolution as something that could be developed into a settlement that was "as good as" independence. John Swinney makes it quite clear that he is content with devolution. He wants to make devolution work. He shows no sign of wanting it to end.
To a certain extent, this is understandable if we place it in the context of forces that regard devolution as a failed experiment and want to return to direct rule. It is one of the dilemmas of Scottish constitutional politics that pro-independence activists (of the more thoughtful variety) simultaneously want to end devolution in favour of independence and find that they must defend devolution lest it be ended in favour of direct rule.
Devolution should have been ended no later than September 2018. In early 2015 everything was running in favour of the independence movement. I have written previously – probably more often than I should – that there were maybe half a dozen decisions or choices made by Sturgeon which wrecked the work done under Alex Salmond. One of the first things she should have done was declare that there would be another referendum with a target date of September 2018, four years after the first one.
Sturgeon should also have stated that the 2018 referendum would be very different from the 2014 one and that a full review of the 2014 campaign would be conducted to see what lessons could be learned.
The momentum was there in 2015. Sturgeon seemed to suppose that the Yes movement was something she could keep powered down in a cupboard to be brought out and dusted off whenever an election loomed. That has been the attitude of the SNP leadership ever since. sturgeon cast the die, and her baleful influence lingers.
There was so much that could have been done differently in the years between the 2014 sham referendum and a real one in September 2018. If only Sturgeon had been thinking of devolution as something she should be striving to end rather than thinking of it as a 'route to independence'.
Peter, Without Holyrood the SNP was never going to hold power In Scotland. Our history and the Yes movement might have never happened if Holyrood had never existed.
Scottish Information Commissioner David Hamilton comments are music to my ears!! I have never believed since 2015 when the SNP stood on a slogan "Lets Make Westminster Work For Scotland" that under Sturgeon Scotland would become Independent and I was correct.
Do I want Independence YES ever day of my life but I cannot help being worried about the people who are in charge of the SNP the Yes movement and running Scotland, we need to be rid of these Traitors and schemers.
I want justice for Mr Salmond and all the people who donated to this fund and for the those people who chose to con and scheme to face the full might of the law.
The SIC comments will have a massive effect on any case Wings decides to take forward and if I was Mr Swinney or Ms Sturgeon I'd be worried, this isn't the end of the story.
I find it so hard to believe how Sturgeon since a small teenager wanted Independence and when given the keys to that goal blow it all away to safe the union and move to London, I hope she never returns.
Lets be clear anyone who is responsible for the break up of the united kingdom will have it made on the world stage and the money to be made making speaches would be more than you could ever imagine and yet she chose the latter, what a fool.
If Swinney isn't removed he'll give Scotland away and lets be honest the SNP has now become Scotland's jailer its time to rid ourselves of these Individual before its to late.
I feel sure Rev will be pleased with what the SIC has said.
I think the Anglo/British government have a dilemma,as regards the SNP, because of their stand that the,SNP is the party of Indeoendence in Scotland (which also suitscthe,SNP!), they have to suggest it is corruption and incompetent for viewers in England, despite having infiltrated it to a high degree (possible funding some of its members/activities directly to ensure compliance).
At the same time they are well aware, I'm sure, that many members are unhappy and defecting, the Scottish public is losing faith in them as a vehicle for Independence, and other parties/ organisations (including Salvo/liberation.scot) are gaining support. So it is a fine balance for them of criticising the SNP for the benefit of English public opinion, while giving covert support to keep the SNP 'on message'.
There is a good chance that this will soon not be a viable policy. I certainly hope so.
The efforts of many Scots to open the can of worms,caused by the fraudulent misuse of ring-fenced funds, along with efforts to reveal the evil conspiracy against Alex Salmond, will, I hope, finally bring this whole perversion of our Scottish Government and Legal System crashing down.
A lot of people do not realise how corrupt our legal system is. A.S. Case could open the can of worms but I doubt it will be allowed to. From the Lord Advocate down to the police force having no Senior Scottish officers. It all has to be addressed. The Westminster Government will never allow it.
Whenever Swinney is challenged on his inaction and lack of innovation by party members he says he is constrained by the colonial Scotland Act, which London has used to make us a 'dependency'.
If he was a nationalist he would tear it up. Until then he clearly takes his instructions from London and admits as much.
I absolutely agree that London has used the Scotland Act 1998 to make us a 'dependency' but what do you say to someone who points out that we voted to make way for it in our own referendum of 1997?
I think only about 60% of us voted in the 1997 referendum, probably because it was likely to be accepted with support from the SNP and Labour.
Hi Joe if we are now a “dependency “ I believe by definition of the UN we are a colony. Which is the exact opposite of what the UK said in 1951 at the UN , stating we were in a “voluntary union “. This is one of the main points of Scotland’s Liberation movement. It’s well known that Scotland has every colonial marker including linguiside, genocide, deportation. Yes much as many cannot see it that’s what we are.
'Devolution' was all that was on offer from Westminster in 1997, i.e. mair colonialism in a slightly different format, or what is known as 'indirect rule' as opposed to what we were formerly subject to, i.e. 'direct rule'.
This is still not regarded as 'self-determination' which for most countries is decolonization, or what some still call independence. Scots were not permitted the choice of that 'full measure' of self-determination in 1997.
The 'direct rule' I remember in 1997 came from a government full of Scots, arguably including the Prime Minister (born in Edinburgh) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer (based near my home town in Fife).
We also provided the Foreign Secretary, Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State for Defence.
There were at least half a dozen other key Scottish ministers in more junior roles, including my own MP Alistair Darling as Chief Secretary to the Treasury as well as Helen Liddell, Henry McLeish, Brian Wilson (now the Celtic chairman), and John McFall, a whip.
The one I've not mentioned, of course, now has a statue at the top of Buchanan Street, Donald Dewar. It's a handy place to meet my pals, I suppose. To say I dislike devolution might be a bit of an understatement and the money he spent on that ridiculous parliament building in Holyrood was a complete waste.
We are now further away from real government, and I mean an actual government of a recognised sovereign state, than I can remember.
Independence is further away too. In 1997 we had 72 MPs. As I've pointed out we had a plethora of government ministers all with real power. Now what do we have, Douglas Alexander!?
I'll stop now before I start tearing into John Swinney and the other 128 devolutionists who pretend they are a government when they so obviously are not.
My question is, were we a colony in need of decolonisation when we had more MPs per head of population than England, and all the government ministers mentioned above, including Tony Bair and Gordon Brown?
"We" didn't have any of the people you mention. They were all British first and maybe a bit Scottish further down the list, well behind their party. They were British politicians working for the British state. The idea that they were somehow representing Scotland or Scottish interests just because they were born in Edinburgh or lived in Fife is ludicrously naive.
Postcolonial theory reminds us that 'colonialism is always a co-operative venture' (Fanon) with native elites. And that certain native groups 'crave dependence' (Cesaire).
These native elites/groups therefore tend to hold the same values as the colonizer, values 'which include the crushing of the colonized' people/nation (Memmi). And in a colonial society 'it is only the values of the colonizer that are sovereign' (Memmi).
In essence, 'colonialism may speak with a native tongue' (Fanon) but serves the interests of the colonizer, a case in point being MPs and MSPs in Scotland serving the colonial power as well as those running colonial institutions.
We should also remember that 'colonialism is based on psychology' (Cesaire), hence the 'colonial mindset' which is 'a disease of the mind' caused by colonialism, and affecting both colonized and colonizer, albeit in different ways (Memmi); in particular the colonized who are made to believe in their inferiority, and the colonizer in their superiority, which leads us to the fundamental racist aspect involved in colonial and cultural domination.
Absolutely correct. The Scotland Act, passed by an (effectively) English Parkiament is against Scots Law, and its attempts to change the terms of the Union, inadequate for protecting Scotland as they were, has no legality in Scotland.
Yet our government accepts it as preventing our Right to Independence!
Hence, we must first take back our government. Then we can take back our parliament. Finally, we take back our nation.
The vast majority of people in the independence movement jump straight to the third thing. Obviously, that won't work. It hasn't worked. It never will work.
The same people tend to be ignorant of the fact that we have two battles to win on our road to restoring independence. The first is the fight to secure the means and opportunity to fully and freely exercise our right of self-determination. Only then can we engage with the fight to restore independence.
There's a massive job of education to be done before Scotland's cause can make any progress. The problem with that is the likes of the dumb party loyalists I'm venting about today. Many (most?) of them don't want to learn. If it's not coming from Swinney, they refuse to listen. How can we educate people who are convinced they already know all they need to know?
The #ScottishUDI strategy was supposed to spark debate in the independence movement. But there is no attentive audience. Too many people still believe they only have to keep voting for the SNP and independence will fall in their lap.
I saw your valiant attempts at rationale in the comments section of that National article yesterday.
Whilst I admire your tenacity there really is no reasoning with the loyal and blind. They are a lost cause. They have fully bought into the Nicola Sturgeon cult of personality and there is no going back for them. For them her political beatification is existential.
For them you are a Unionist if you say that there are questions for Nicola Sturgeon to answer. Or you are a misogynist. They make ludicrous accusations that it is a British state conspiracy to jail the Blessed Nicola, as it attempted to do previously to Alex Salmond - oh, the irony - and will soon be attempting to do to John Swinney ... they claim, without providing any substantiating facts.
No matter how much evidence to the contrary of what they believe or pretend to believe. No matter the glaring contradictions in their so called arguments. No matter the obvious and numerous betrayals of Scotland's Cause. Denial is total.
In 2019 - that is, pre-pandemic - I was gifted a ticket to, and attended, one of these Edinburgh Festival talk shows 'starring' Nicola Sturgeon. Whilst the fawning interviewer was nauseating I was struck by the cheering, whooping and hollering that greeted Ms Sturgeon's arrival, departure and every vacuous comment, empty phrase and pregnant pause. It was an adoring reception that would have made Joe Stalin blush.
One wonders what will happen if Stuart Campbell is successful in pressing his case for a Judicial Review of the Police Scotland decision not to re-investigate the case for embezzlement of the ring-fenced referendum campaign funds after the complacent and dim-witted Swinney admitted the funds were used for things other than the single purpose for which they were raised.
Or if the upcoming Paul McManus civil lawsuit against the Scottish Government for misfeasance regarding their handling of the harassment complaints against Alex Salmond - when Nicola Sturgeon was FM and John Swinney was her deputy - returns a 'guilty' verdict.
If either of these events were to materialise it is guaranteed that much wailing and gnashing of teeth among the cult and it would not surprise me if mass jumping off tall buildings ensued.
When I saw the video of him in the Holyrood hallway 'answering' to the Scottish Press I was struck immediately that he had been forced into a position where he had had to make a choice.
I do not believe for one second that JS was caught out and complacently blurted out something that could be a crucial public admisssion.
You may think I am uncharitable. I have not the slightest sintilla of 'give him the benefit of the doubt' when it comes to JS.
Similarly I saw a clip of him happily hobnobbing with the the newly inserted English Prime Mayor of Westminster recently.
He may well believe the bullshit that he is respected and in his rightful place as 'one of their respected elected leaders' or some such delusion.
In my very carefully considered opinion JS is calculating and machievellian and dangerous to Scotlands future.
Don't underestimate him, just because he can be stupid and some of his manipulations are transparently obvious to the seasoned observer.
Some of those things that he has done and is doing 'behind the scenes' are the things that will set our future and even sleekit as he is it should be obvious that he is strenuously steering in the wrong direction while strenuously pretending that he isn't.
TBQH at this point I would rather have had an honest dullard than sleekit liar in charge, but we don't seem to ever get to choose the 'leaders' that we want or need.
We are presented with Swinneys and Borisses that we know are not up to the job.
:-(
*social media comments are subject to 'fair comment' rules.
When I described him as being "dim-witted and complacent" I was not underestimating John Swinney.
People can have a low IQ yet be extremely cunning, the latter attribute perhaps being the lowest form of human intelligence. And cunning people can be very dangerous.
You need to be mindful that not all SNP members are blind followers of the SNP. Yes many of the SNP party faithful are blinkered to the reality but im not one of them. At last Octobers conference I walked out after the members voted to support the SNP only majority. It was doomed to failure from the get go. The SNP party leadership dont want independence. They are leading the membership up a blind alley. They know the Section 30 order request will be refused. Its a tokenistic process, a tick box exercise. When the SNP big hitters were rolled out at last Octobers conference to support the SNP only majority the members find it difficult to oppose. I can assure you there are many disgruntled SNP members ...I attended Saturdays National Assembly in Perth and there were voices of discontent.
But whats the alternative to the SNP?
A unionist Holyrood that will kick Indy into the long grass.
The domestic route is blocked hence why im investing my time in the International route led by Liberation Scotland and Salvo.
" You need to be mindful that not all SNP members are blind followers of the SNP ".
Well, I suppose that is kinda good to know. But only " kinda ", Leigh, because if that disaffected % does not become a dissident %, then being the former will change nothing.
" But whats the alternative to the SNP? ".
You must know that that question is exactly what the current SNP relies on to get people to continue voting for it - even those like yourself who are aware of how badly the party is failing, particularly in it's core mission.
I honestly believe to continue voting for it is possibly worse than not doing so. Mainly for the reason that it monopolizes and, effectively, holds the Pro-Independence demographic to ransom whilst not only refusing to do anything even vaguely constructive of progressing our cause, but also acquiescing to every outrageous - and currently insanely reckless - idiocy of the Brit State.
Equally disturbing and allowing it is only being mooted - so far - is the feeble response of the SNP to the idea of a * new * ( ie first ever ) UK Constitution: which can ONLY be being proposed as a further attempt to make the realizing of Scottish Independence even more difficult - if not ' legally ' impossible.
If this idea becomes a reality and the SNP does not organize and front mass public protest against it it will be the most egregious act of betrayal since the theft and sale of our independent nationhood in 1707
“I honestly believe to continue voting for it is possibly worse than not doing so.”
I believe increasing numbers of us, former SNP members, have already reached that point. I am certainly one of them & cannot see me voting for them again unless/until there is some serious change in the leadership - including getting behind the Salvo/ Liberation initiative.
There's no danger of me forgetting that there are still SNP members who are trying to rescue the party. I had a wee beer 'n' blether session with one of them on Saturday. I best not mention names. And I'm aware of your own views, Leigh. I've been told there were very obvious rumblings of discontent at the National Assembly.
I am also aware of the problem of there being no alternative to the SNP at the moment. About the best that can be said of the party is that they keep the British parties away from power. I am happy to give my enthusiastic support to those trying to change the SNP from the inside. The trouble is that the clique which has hijacked the party has made its position impregnable. They've built a fortress around themselves. The leadership can neither be moved nor removed.
If there isn't a real independence party by 2031, there is a very real danger that so many people will turn away from the SNP the British parties could take over Holyrood.
Excellent if desperate comment on the state of the SNP. They have grown 'too big for their boots ' comes to mind..but I fear the organism ...SNP ...once considered the vehicle for our independence is fatally flawed. ..something is 'rotten in the state of the SNP' ...We need other independence parties to oppose and hold them to account.
We have a weasly quisling at the wheel of the SNP who tells us to 'watch and see' while the body of the kirk do not challenge him. There is no cure for treason, indolence,double standards, outright lying, financially untrustworthy, cloth ears, arrogance..the list is endless...but worst of all they have betrayed the Scots. They are a lost cause.
I lost trust a number of years ago when at a meeting of our local SNP we were informed by 'head office' that we had to vote in a specific way.( no discussion)..I resented the big brother control and left not long after ..never to return.
The only thing that was " ring-fenced " was/is the capacity for critical thinking of the SNP Membership - which might accurately be described as the Can't Remembership, ie remember what it is the SNP was formed to do.
Yes, it appears there is still a looooong way to go before a tipping point of honest reflection on and decisive action taken regarding the abysmal continually failing SNP is reached.
I reckon if - real, serious - insurrection doesn't occur at this year's SNP Conference, when the party is electorally secure for the next 4+ years, then it never will: and the party will stumble on as it has, making embarrassing & stupid faux-pas, and lose the next S.E.
I have thought that these people who are blind followers of the snp are not real people at all, but are a bot farm run by the snp. But I am begining to think now that i might be wrong to a degree. The attendance at conferences might give a better picture.
It may be both. It's really not a serious consideration that the membership has NOT been infiltrated ( like the party hierarchy def has ) and is being malignly affected by * external * factors like, eg bot farmer's online manure
It fucking annoys me I have to do this because of the extreme partisanship of the "Dumb party loyalists" on the one hand, and the "Dumb party destroyers" on the other.
Read this somewhat better article: https://archive.is/QPPNQ
and here's a couple of quotes, with my comment after it:
"Having spent five years relentlessly pursuing the Scottish Government over the so-called "Salmond Files", Scotland's information commissioner is about to have Operation Branchform in his sights."
Excellent. Doing his job.
"Earlier this year, the Scottish Government was found in contempt of court by the Court of Session over its delay in releasing the heavily-redacted material first requested back in 2021."
Do you see that? The Court of Session doing its job - one of the routes for the SIC (Scotland's information commissioner).
"While Freedom of Information decisions by the Crown Office cannot be appealed to the commissioner under current law, Mr Hamilton confirmed he is prepared to use his statutory powers to compel bodies like Police Scotland to release materials where it serves the public interest."
Well bloody do it then, don't go whining to the press - specially just one newspaper. But note that: "his statutory powers to compel bodies like Police Scotland" - another of the routes for the SIC.
"With the Commissioner stating on Sunday that Branchform decisions "merit further scrutiny" he seems to indicating that he would take an open-minded approach."
If it is his job to enforce the "further scrutiny", then DO YOUR BLOODY JOB. If not. leave it to whoever's job it is, though perhaps pass on the request with a simple comment "I agree".
Running to one single newspaper is pathetic. Unless it is absolutely the last resort, to be followed by "I resign as I am not allowed to do my job by: xxx, yyy, long list".
next
To summarise:
DO YOUR JOB SCOTTISH INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
and don't go bleating to the press.
(unless you are so stymied your only choice is a full press conference)
In your strange mind, the phrase "merit further scrutiny" takes on a meaning beyond anything to be found in a dictionary. Your final paragraph suggests "strange" may not be a big enough word.
"In your strange mind, the phrase "merit further scrutiny" takes on a meaning... "
Ehhh, that was from the Herald article by Kathleen Nutt - do keep up at the back!
https://archive.is/QPPNQ#selection-1847.3-1847.161
"With the Commissioner stating on Sunday that Branchform decisions "merit further scrutiny" he seems to indicating that he would take an open-minded approach."
Not very good at this quote attribution thing, are you? Next you'll be telling everybody Alan Cochrane of the Telegraph is the best friend Independence ever had as he hates the SNP!
What was from what Herald article? The phrase "merits further scrutiny" is a direct quote from David Hamilton's Times interview. Kathleen Nutt is correct. She clearly understands the phrase the same way everybody bar you understands it. It indicates that he is keeping an open mind. You want him sacked for keeping an open mind. Yer a nutter!
Anyways I give up. It's like trying to have a sensible conversation with a senile illiterate imbecile. Just in case you have one single remaining functioning neuron, here it is in summary:
*** Scottish Information Commissioner - DO YOUR BLOODY JOB ***
I'm not surprised you totally disagree with that.
Always the lies. Nowhere did I say anything even remotely like that. Nowhere, that is, except inside that demented wee head of yours. David Hamilton seems to be doing his job quite well. It is only proper that he should approach matters with an open mind. It's not clear why you object so vehemently to him taking this approach.
You don't like being misrepresented do you?
But you do it all the time yourself to others - you twist their words to try to say what your furtive neuron wants it to say. You just did it again in your reply to me.
You're twisted.
Good grief, what the fuck? Are you pretending to be as thick as two short planks laid end to end, or is it genuine?
We know you're not pretending.
lol
I was looking back through previous articles and their associated comments and was reminded that 2 months ago you published the article "Trust no more!" [1]
Wherein you draw attention to the credible testimony of two women [2] who were witness to part of the slow motion trainwreck that was the SNP accounting shambles.
That incident similarly highlights the almost unbelievable level of excuse creation and outright denial among people who otherwise seemingly have brains functional enough to type comments into Nationalist related comments sections and social media.
It surely must be the case that non true believers must have been negatively influenced by these recent revelations.
I have yet to see evidence that those vociferous protesters have reached their own personal reckoning.
Perhaps some of them never will?
But they do look increasingly deranged to the rest of us.
So that is something.
At some point the number of ordinary people who are prepared to say
'stop with this nonsense, look at what has happened'
is going to significantly outnumber then overpower the reality deniers.
If we have not already reached that point then we must be very close to it already.
We will only be sure with hindsight.
By that point in time they should be increasingly irrelevant.
We live in hope.
[1] https://peterabell.substack.com/p/trust-no-more
[2] "Bombshell SNP Whistleblowers: Nicola Sturgeon ‘BULLIED’ Us After Sounding Peter Murrell Fraud Alarm"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_qqi6NLGJs
I had to go and read the article you refer to (https://bitl.to/605V). Not for the first time, I found myself nodding in agreement with the article as if it had been written by someone else. And I found myself getting angry again at the brazen dishonesty at the top of the SNP.
What do we do about it? That question has been plaguing me. Not because I don't know the answer, but because I do. I know that we need New Scotland Party. It can be revived. But I don't know that I'm the person for that job.
I have got as far as seriously considering a fundraising exercise and even checking out some of the options. But I am very reluctant to ask people for money. I don't like being responsible for it.
I think I'll write an article on this tomorrow. Very often, I argue myself into or out of things in the process of writing about them.
I am absolutely convinced that we must have a genuine party of independence. I should probably include my reasons in the article. We need a genuine national party that hasn't been captured by the British establishment. I don't particularly want to be in charge of setting up this party. But at the same time, I don't trust anyone else to do it.
Apologies for rambling a bit. Just pouring out some of the content of my head to see what it looks like in the wild.
Having given this some thought, I sympathise on the dilema.
If _somebody_else_ would just step up and DO THE RIGHT THING we would all be more than likely to rally to their flag.
Unfortunately, and I am going to propose a very opinionated view here, those who think that they have stepped up are most definitely NOT doing the right thing.
This moment we are in now is a period, after the betrayal of the post election inaction (that we expected) and the disappearance of the false hope of the Alba party, that should be the optimum time for educating increasing numbers of an increasingly receptive audience .
However, and I am going to be controversial and judgemental again here,
our supposed 'thought leaders' are so far behind where they need to be in their thinking that they may well be our largest handicap in that necessary endeavour.
(please Note: I explicitly exclude Salvo / Liberation from this damning judgement)
I would say that the time that it will become desperately important to have a true independence party is not necessarily upon us just yet.
Of course the timetable could suddenly be pulled up very dramatically short if the UK government precedes in the way that I fear that it is going to. :-(
So called 'Independence' leaders need to understand and accept first and foremost that England-as-Britain is NEVER going to 'let' Scotland go.
The real politik is just that simple.
They need to face it, accept it, then address the 'What Next' question.
What are they going to do once they acknowledge that we have to TAKE back our independence FROM England-as-Britain.
It will not be 'given' and if it were, it would be a total sham.
A fake. Worse than where we are now - with at least a hope of reinstating our sovereignty and resiling from the Treaty of Union.
Do you know Gayle Millar?
She is the only other Independence public intellectual / writer that I can think of outside of the Liberation movement that has publicised a realistic understanding of our situation.
Perhaps you should talk to her.
I have now read Gayle's comments and find her thinking interesting even if a bit legalistic for my taste. I did post a reply inviting her to get in touch. I don't know if my comment will get past the censors.
And, yes, I know what you mean about being a bit legalistic - a subject I'm not at all knowledgeable about; though Gayle certainly appears to be and, given what we're trying to do, ie find as many " angles " from which to pursue - and achieve - our goal as possible - such legal aspects are, or could become, of vital relevance. Again, for me, it's a case of using everything we have at our disposal to advance our cause. I only wish all the disparate elements could be brought together into one unified ( by single-minded intent ) point/body
It can sometimes take days for comments to appear there, P - though they almost always do.
That's why I seldom visit Barrhead Boy. If you activate pre-moderation you better be prepared to deal with the comments promptly.
That's your comment appeared on B.B, P: and a damn good one it is too :)
Aye, it can be a bit frustrating, as the delay in comments appearing has the effect of breaking the * flow * of exchanges/conversation: to the point where it can become pointless to reply to a comment that has appeared days later when the initial impetus has been depleted and, at times, a new post has appeared
I don't think I know Gayle. I shall do some research.
Gayle is excellent. I assume you've read her recent posts BTL on Barrhead Boy laying out her position and suggesting strategies for implementation of her ideas.
Peter, if you read this, I would recommend having a look at what Gayle has written as part of recent exchanges with Roddy. I hope your, ahem....." differences of opinion " won't prevent you doing so. She, like a previous suggestion, ie Craig Murray, is someone with whom I could imagine you having fruitful dialogue.
I shall take a look.
The recent exchange between Gayle and Roddy began - I think -BTL on the previous Sunday's Prism and continued on the most recent one, ie Sunday past: just so you'll have more context of what was said by each
Thanks. I'll take another look.
"The SNP did solicit donations to a fund which they stated would be ring-fenced to finance the pro-independence campaign in a new referendum."
NOT at the time of the donation being made as far as I can see, unless there is some evidence which can actually be proved in court that the donation page said it would be ring-fenced.
AFTER the donation was made, utterings and mutterings don't prove a single solitary thing. They were not the incentive to donate unless the donor had their own Tardis.
First capture in April 2017:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170402130511/https://www.ref.scot/
You can not use the future to condemn the past.
There is ample evidence of the SNP stating that the donations would be ring-fenced. Stu Campbell has published all the relevant material.
AFTER the donations were made, not before.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wk13ady5wk2gprix51btj/ring-fenced.png?rlkey=9225t3owh5qogo1c4j74pr15x&st=hf2izk0b&dl=0
Incidentally, does nobody else see that this is utterly wrong?
"Speaking to The Times, the Scottish Information Commissioner said ..."
Just to clarify that, talking to one single newspaper should surely be against his code of conduct, his ethics. His first recourse is direct to the government officials concerned. His second is to the Court of Session presumably, and he has / is already doing that on issues. If he feels a need to talk to the media, he should call a press conference and talk to ALL of them. No "exclusives". He is a public official, and should act like one. I think the SPCB should consider reprimanding him and reminding him of his duties to the public - us.
What rule(s) has David Hamilton breached? What provision of his code of conduct has he failed to comply with?
I have seen this kind of comment from a number of dumb SNP loyalists. The purpose it would seem is to cast aspersions which are never supported by reference to anything substantial. It's just throwing shit to see what will stick.
He has routes he should take as I pointed out. IF that all failed he should have called a press conference, rather than talking to one single one-sided newspaper.
All public officials should be unbiased in their dealings with the media.
If you can't see that you are being one-sided yourself.
I am totally in favour of governments whatever their flavour, being held to account.
Why? Why should he have talked to a number of media outlets greater than one? It was an interview. Presumably, The Times contacted him and asked if he'd submit to being interviewed. Other newspapers could have done likewise. Apparently, they didn't.
Where is the bias? All he did was acknowledge that there were "conflicting versions of events". Which is simply a statement of fact. He went on to say that this "merits further scrutiny". A rather mild statement and not at all controversial.
If "further scrutiny" is his job, then he should do his job. If it isn't his job, he should have some respect for those whose job it is - perhaps the courts. His public office is certainly not to be a populist, running off to the press for whatever reason.
He is the Scottish Information Commissioner - and should behave as though he is fit for that office, rather than demean it.
Holyrood was supposed to be Scotland's stepping stone towards Independence the NUSNP turn it into Scotland's headstone.
I'm not a betting man, but I'll guarantee you that someone tonight has written to Police Scotland for a freedom of information request..
Some may have thought devolution was a "stepping stone towards independence". I did not see it that way at all. I'm sure I'd be able to find some old blog article in which I pointed out that devolution was not incremental and could not metamorphose into independence. Devolution was offered as an alternative to independence. For independence to be restored, devolution would have to end.
Devolution was initially and for some years beneficial to Scotland's cause. Alex Salmond found ways to use devolution to create or highlight differences between Scotland and England. It was in the course of the two Salmond-led administrations that the locus of Scotland's politics shifted from Westminster to Holyrood. This was an essential precursor to any effort aimed at restoring independence.
This ended when Salmond stepped down. Instead of using devolution as a means to build a base for Scotland's cause, Sturgeon and her successors went back to treating devolution as something that could be developed into a settlement that was "as good as" independence. John Swinney makes it quite clear that he is content with devolution. He wants to make devolution work. He shows no sign of wanting it to end.
To a certain extent, this is understandable if we place it in the context of forces that regard devolution as a failed experiment and want to return to direct rule. It is one of the dilemmas of Scottish constitutional politics that pro-independence activists (of the more thoughtful variety) simultaneously want to end devolution in favour of independence and find that they must defend devolution lest it be ended in favour of direct rule.
Devolution should have been ended no later than September 2018. In early 2015 everything was running in favour of the independence movement. I have written previously – probably more often than I should – that there were maybe half a dozen decisions or choices made by Sturgeon which wrecked the work done under Alex Salmond. One of the first things she should have done was declare that there would be another referendum with a target date of September 2018, four years after the first one.
Sturgeon should also have stated that the 2018 referendum would be very different from the 2014 one and that a full review of the 2014 campaign would be conducted to see what lessons could be learned.
The momentum was there in 2015. Sturgeon seemed to suppose that the Yes movement was something she could keep powered down in a cupboard to be brought out and dusted off whenever an election loomed. That has been the attitude of the SNP leadership ever since. sturgeon cast the die, and her baleful influence lingers.
There was so much that could have been done differently in the years between the 2014 sham referendum and a real one in September 2018. If only Sturgeon had been thinking of devolution as something she should be striving to end rather than thinking of it as a 'route to independence'.
Peter, Without Holyrood the SNP was never going to hold power In Scotland. Our history and the Yes movement might have never happened if Holyrood had never existed.
Well said Peter, I do agree entirely.
Scottish Information Commissioner David Hamilton comments are music to my ears!! I have never believed since 2015 when the SNP stood on a slogan "Lets Make Westminster Work For Scotland" that under Sturgeon Scotland would become Independent and I was correct.
Do I want Independence YES ever day of my life but I cannot help being worried about the people who are in charge of the SNP the Yes movement and running Scotland, we need to be rid of these Traitors and schemers.
I want justice for Mr Salmond and all the people who donated to this fund and for the those people who chose to con and scheme to face the full might of the law.
The SIC comments will have a massive effect on any case Wings decides to take forward and if I was Mr Swinney or Ms Sturgeon I'd be worried, this isn't the end of the story.
I find it so hard to believe how Sturgeon since a small teenager wanted Independence and when given the keys to that goal blow it all away to safe the union and move to London, I hope she never returns.
Lets be clear anyone who is responsible for the break up of the united kingdom will have it made on the world stage and the money to be made making speaches would be more than you could ever imagine and yet she chose the latter, what a fool.
If Swinney isn't removed he'll give Scotland away and lets be honest the SNP has now become Scotland's jailer its time to rid ourselves of these Individual before its to late.
I feel sure Rev will be pleased with what the SIC has said.
I think the Anglo/British government have a dilemma,as regards the SNP, because of their stand that the,SNP is the party of Indeoendence in Scotland (which also suitscthe,SNP!), they have to suggest it is corruption and incompetent for viewers in England, despite having infiltrated it to a high degree (possible funding some of its members/activities directly to ensure compliance).
At the same time they are well aware, I'm sure, that many members are unhappy and defecting, the Scottish public is losing faith in them as a vehicle for Independence, and other parties/ organisations (including Salvo/liberation.scot) are gaining support. So it is a fine balance for them of criticising the SNP for the benefit of English public opinion, while giving covert support to keep the SNP 'on message'.
There is a good chance that this will soon not be a viable policy. I certainly hope so.
The efforts of many Scots to open the can of worms,caused by the fraudulent misuse of ring-fenced funds, along with efforts to reveal the evil conspiracy against Alex Salmond, will, I hope, finally bring this whole perversion of our Scottish Government and Legal System crashing down.
A lot of people do not realise how corrupt our legal system is. A.S. Case could open the can of worms but I doubt it will be allowed to. From the Lord Advocate down to the police force having no Senior Scottish officers. It all has to be addressed. The Westminster Government will never allow it.
Whenever Swinney is challenged on his inaction and lack of innovation by party members he says he is constrained by the colonial Scotland Act, which London has used to make us a 'dependency'.
If he was a nationalist he would tear it up. Until then he clearly takes his instructions from London and admits as much.
I absolutely agree that London has used the Scotland Act 1998 to make us a 'dependency' but what do you say to someone who points out that we voted to make way for it in our own referendum of 1997?
I think only about 60% of us voted in the 1997 referendum, probably because it was likely to be accepted with support from the SNP and Labour.
Hi Joe if we are now a “dependency “ I believe by definition of the UN we are a colony. Which is the exact opposite of what the UK said in 1951 at the UN , stating we were in a “voluntary union “. This is one of the main points of Scotland’s Liberation movement. It’s well known that Scotland has every colonial marker including linguiside, genocide, deportation. Yes much as many cannot see it that’s what we are.
'Devolution' was all that was on offer from Westminster in 1997, i.e. mair colonialism in a slightly different format, or what is known as 'indirect rule' as opposed to what we were formerly subject to, i.e. 'direct rule'.
This is still not regarded as 'self-determination' which for most countries is decolonization, or what some still call independence. Scots were not permitted the choice of that 'full measure' of self-determination in 1997.
The 'direct rule' I remember in 1997 came from a government full of Scots, arguably including the Prime Minister (born in Edinburgh) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer (based near my home town in Fife).
We also provided the Foreign Secretary, Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State for Defence.
There were at least half a dozen other key Scottish ministers in more junior roles, including my own MP Alistair Darling as Chief Secretary to the Treasury as well as Helen Liddell, Henry McLeish, Brian Wilson (now the Celtic chairman), and John McFall, a whip.
The one I've not mentioned, of course, now has a statue at the top of Buchanan Street, Donald Dewar. It's a handy place to meet my pals, I suppose. To say I dislike devolution might be a bit of an understatement and the money he spent on that ridiculous parliament building in Holyrood was a complete waste.
We are now further away from real government, and I mean an actual government of a recognised sovereign state, than I can remember.
Independence is further away too. In 1997 we had 72 MPs. As I've pointed out we had a plethora of government ministers all with real power. Now what do we have, Douglas Alexander!?
I'll stop now before I start tearing into John Swinney and the other 128 devolutionists who pretend they are a government when they so obviously are not.
My question is, were we a colony in need of decolonisation when we had more MPs per head of population than England, and all the government ministers mentioned above, including Tony Bair and Gordon Brown?
"We" didn't have any of the people you mention. They were all British first and maybe a bit Scottish further down the list, well behind their party. They were British politicians working for the British state. The idea that they were somehow representing Scotland or Scottish interests just because they were born in Edinburgh or lived in Fife is ludicrously naive.
You're "ludicrously naive" if you think like that. Nae wonder we vote for ridiculous ideas like a £300m parliament to host 129 devolutionists.
Postcolonial theory reminds us that 'colonialism is always a co-operative venture' (Fanon) with native elites. And that certain native groups 'crave dependence' (Cesaire).
These native elites/groups therefore tend to hold the same values as the colonizer, values 'which include the crushing of the colonized' people/nation (Memmi). And in a colonial society 'it is only the values of the colonizer that are sovereign' (Memmi).
In essence, 'colonialism may speak with a native tongue' (Fanon) but serves the interests of the colonizer, a case in point being MPs and MSPs in Scotland serving the colonial power as well as those running colonial institutions.
We should also remember that 'colonialism is based on psychology' (Cesaire), hence the 'colonial mindset' which is 'a disease of the mind' caused by colonialism, and affecting both colonized and colonizer, albeit in different ways (Memmi); in particular the colonized who are made to believe in their inferiority, and the colonizer in their superiority, which leads us to the fundamental racist aspect involved in colonial and cultural domination.
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2024/03/03/the-colonial-mindset/
I've read and liked all your posts. Well, the ones I've seen.
Absolutely correct. The Scotland Act, passed by an (effectively) English Parkiament is against Scots Law, and its attempts to change the terms of the Union, inadequate for protecting Scotland as they were, has no legality in Scotland.
Yet our government accepts it as preventing our Right to Independence!
Hence, we must first take back our government. Then we can take back our parliament. Finally, we take back our nation.
The vast majority of people in the independence movement jump straight to the third thing. Obviously, that won't work. It hasn't worked. It never will work.
The same people tend to be ignorant of the fact that we have two battles to win on our road to restoring independence. The first is the fight to secure the means and opportunity to fully and freely exercise our right of self-determination. Only then can we engage with the fight to restore independence.
There's a massive job of education to be done before Scotland's cause can make any progress. The problem with that is the likes of the dumb party loyalists I'm venting about today. Many (most?) of them don't want to learn. If it's not coming from Swinney, they refuse to listen. How can we educate people who are convinced they already know all they need to know?
The #ScottishUDI strategy was supposed to spark debate in the independence movement. But there is no attentive audience. Too many people still believe they only have to keep voting for the SNP and independence will fall in their lap.
I saw your valiant attempts at rationale in the comments section of that National article yesterday.
Whilst I admire your tenacity there really is no reasoning with the loyal and blind. They are a lost cause. They have fully bought into the Nicola Sturgeon cult of personality and there is no going back for them. For them her political beatification is existential.
For them you are a Unionist if you say that there are questions for Nicola Sturgeon to answer. Or you are a misogynist. They make ludicrous accusations that it is a British state conspiracy to jail the Blessed Nicola, as it attempted to do previously to Alex Salmond - oh, the irony - and will soon be attempting to do to John Swinney ... they claim, without providing any substantiating facts.
No matter how much evidence to the contrary of what they believe or pretend to believe. No matter the glaring contradictions in their so called arguments. No matter the obvious and numerous betrayals of Scotland's Cause. Denial is total.
In 2019 - that is, pre-pandemic - I was gifted a ticket to, and attended, one of these Edinburgh Festival talk shows 'starring' Nicola Sturgeon. Whilst the fawning interviewer was nauseating I was struck by the cheering, whooping and hollering that greeted Ms Sturgeon's arrival, departure and every vacuous comment, empty phrase and pregnant pause. It was an adoring reception that would have made Joe Stalin blush.
One wonders what will happen if Stuart Campbell is successful in pressing his case for a Judicial Review of the Police Scotland decision not to re-investigate the case for embezzlement of the ring-fenced referendum campaign funds after the complacent and dim-witted Swinney admitted the funds were used for things other than the single purpose for which they were raised.
Or if the upcoming Paul McManus civil lawsuit against the Scottish Government for misfeasance regarding their handling of the harassment complaints against Alex Salmond - when Nicola Sturgeon was FM and John Swinney was her deputy - returns a 'guilty' verdict.
If either of these events were to materialise it is guaranteed that much wailing and gnashing of teeth among the cult and it would not surprise me if mass jumping off tall buildings ensued.
John Swinney is sleekit and self serving.*
When I saw the video of him in the Holyrood hallway 'answering' to the Scottish Press I was struck immediately that he had been forced into a position where he had had to make a choice.
I do not believe for one second that JS was caught out and complacently blurted out something that could be a crucial public admisssion.
You may think I am uncharitable. I have not the slightest sintilla of 'give him the benefit of the doubt' when it comes to JS.
Similarly I saw a clip of him happily hobnobbing with the the newly inserted English Prime Mayor of Westminster recently.
He may well believe the bullshit that he is respected and in his rightful place as 'one of their respected elected leaders' or some such delusion.
In my very carefully considered opinion JS is calculating and machievellian and dangerous to Scotlands future.
Don't underestimate him, just because he can be stupid and some of his manipulations are transparently obvious to the seasoned observer.
Some of those things that he has done and is doing 'behind the scenes' are the things that will set our future and even sleekit as he is it should be obvious that he is strenuously steering in the wrong direction while strenuously pretending that he isn't.
TBQH at this point I would rather have had an honest dullard than sleekit liar in charge, but we don't seem to ever get to choose the 'leaders' that we want or need.
We are presented with Swinneys and Borisses that we know are not up to the job.
:-(
*social media comments are subject to 'fair comment' rules.
This is an individual opinion. (shared by many)
When I described him as being "dim-witted and complacent" I was not underestimating John Swinney.
People can have a low IQ yet be extremely cunning, the latter attribute perhaps being the lowest form of human intelligence. And cunning people can be very dangerous.
I rate John Swinney as cunning.
You need to be mindful that not all SNP members are blind followers of the SNP. Yes many of the SNP party faithful are blinkered to the reality but im not one of them. At last Octobers conference I walked out after the members voted to support the SNP only majority. It was doomed to failure from the get go. The SNP party leadership dont want independence. They are leading the membership up a blind alley. They know the Section 30 order request will be refused. Its a tokenistic process, a tick box exercise. When the SNP big hitters were rolled out at last Octobers conference to support the SNP only majority the members find it difficult to oppose. I can assure you there are many disgruntled SNP members ...I attended Saturdays National Assembly in Perth and there were voices of discontent.
But whats the alternative to the SNP?
A unionist Holyrood that will kick Indy into the long grass.
The domestic route is blocked hence why im investing my time in the International route led by Liberation Scotland and Salvo.
" You need to be mindful that not all SNP members are blind followers of the SNP ".
Well, I suppose that is kinda good to know. But only " kinda ", Leigh, because if that disaffected % does not become a dissident %, then being the former will change nothing.
" But whats the alternative to the SNP? ".
You must know that that question is exactly what the current SNP relies on to get people to continue voting for it - even those like yourself who are aware of how badly the party is failing, particularly in it's core mission.
I honestly believe to continue voting for it is possibly worse than not doing so. Mainly for the reason that it monopolizes and, effectively, holds the Pro-Independence demographic to ransom whilst not only refusing to do anything even vaguely constructive of progressing our cause, but also acquiescing to every outrageous - and currently insanely reckless - idiocy of the Brit State.
Equally disturbing and allowing it is only being mooted - so far - is the feeble response of the SNP to the idea of a * new * ( ie first ever ) UK Constitution: which can ONLY be being proposed as a further attempt to make the realizing of Scottish Independence even more difficult - if not ' legally ' impossible.
If this idea becomes a reality and the SNP does not organize and front mass public protest against it it will be the most egregious act of betrayal since the theft and sale of our independent nationhood in 1707
“I honestly believe to continue voting for it is possibly worse than not doing so.”
I believe increasing numbers of us, former SNP members, have already reached that point. I am certainly one of them & cannot see me voting for them again unless/until there is some serious change in the leadership - including getting behind the Salvo/ Liberation initiative.
There's no danger of me forgetting that there are still SNP members who are trying to rescue the party. I had a wee beer 'n' blether session with one of them on Saturday. I best not mention names. And I'm aware of your own views, Leigh. I've been told there were very obvious rumblings of discontent at the National Assembly.
I am also aware of the problem of there being no alternative to the SNP at the moment. About the best that can be said of the party is that they keep the British parties away from power. I am happy to give my enthusiastic support to those trying to change the SNP from the inside. The trouble is that the clique which has hijacked the party has made its position impregnable. They've built a fortress around themselves. The leadership can neither be moved nor removed.
If there isn't a real independence party by 2031, there is a very real danger that so many people will turn away from the SNP the British parties could take over Holyrood.
Did many fellow dissenters join you in your walk out last year?
Are you aware of any concerted attempt at an alternative and credible strategy being pursued by any non-conformists this year e.g. #ScottishUDI?
Excellent if desperate comment on the state of the SNP. They have grown 'too big for their boots ' comes to mind..but I fear the organism ...SNP ...once considered the vehicle for our independence is fatally flawed. ..something is 'rotten in the state of the SNP' ...We need other independence parties to oppose and hold them to account.
We have a weasly quisling at the wheel of the SNP who tells us to 'watch and see' while the body of the kirk do not challenge him. There is no cure for treason, indolence,double standards, outright lying, financially untrustworthy, cloth ears, arrogance..the list is endless...but worst of all they have betrayed the Scots. They are a lost cause.
I lost trust a number of years ago when at a meeting of our local SNP we were informed by 'head office' that we had to vote in a specific way.( no discussion)..I resented the big brother control and left not long after ..never to return.
They won't recover.
For OUR Scotland and her cheated weans.
The only thing that was " ring-fenced " was/is the capacity for critical thinking of the SNP Membership - which might accurately be described as the Can't Remembership, ie remember what it is the SNP was formed to do.
Yes, it appears there is still a looooong way to go before a tipping point of honest reflection on and decisive action taken regarding the abysmal continually failing SNP is reached.
I reckon if - real, serious - insurrection doesn't occur at this year's SNP Conference, when the party is electorally secure for the next 4+ years, then it never will: and the party will stumble on as it has, making embarrassing & stupid faux-pas, and lose the next S.E.
I have thought that these people who are blind followers of the snp are not real people at all, but are a bot farm run by the snp. But I am begining to think now that i might be wrong to a degree. The attendance at conferences might give a better picture.
It may be both. It's really not a serious consideration that the membership has NOT been infiltrated ( like the party hierarchy def has ) and is being malignly affected by * external * factors like, eg bot farmer's online manure
I've met some of them. They are all too real.